ORDER : The Present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…..this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner’s request for appointment for petitioner’s son i.e., T. Bhaskara Rao in the respondents Visakhapatnam Port Trust in suitable post on compassionate grounds as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post in Visakhapatnam Port Trust on compassionate grounds with effect from the date on which the junior to the petitioner’s were appointed and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 2. The facts of the case as per the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner filed along with Writ Petition are as under : (i) The husband of the petitioner i.e., T. Narsing Rao died on 24-08-1990 while he was working as Hamali in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application dated 20-02-1992 to the respondents to provide employment to her on compassionate grounds. She also made representations dated 18-05-1992 and 23-01-1993. After considering the said representations, respondent No.3 in his Proceedings No.TRE/Bills/APPTTS, dated 10/11-02-1993, directed the petitioner to furnish proof of Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished all the relevant certificates to the respondents. (ii) Subsequently, the petitioner proposed the name of her son i.e., T. Bhaskara Rao for employment in her place giving option to provide the said job to her son vide Letter dated 08-02-1994. Considering the said representation, respondent No.3 in his Letter dated 24-02-1994, directed the petitioner to approach along with Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth of her son to consider their request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner and her son approached respondent No.3 along with all necessary certificates on 08-08-1994. Again, another representation dated 06-03-1997 was submitted as there is no response from the respondents. Again, as per the instructions of the respondents to furnish other particulars, vide Representation dated 02-04-1997, required particulars are furnished by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner and her son approached respondent No.3 along with all necessary certificates on 08-08-1994. Again, another representation dated 06-03-1997 was submitted as there is no response from the respondents. Again, as per the instructions of the respondents to furnish other particulars, vide Representation dated 02-04-1997, required particulars are furnished by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings dated 08-08-1998, rejected the request of the petitioners, on the ground that the claim is belated claim. On representation of the petitioner that there is no delay in making representation, respondent No.3 again vide his Proceedings dated 15-09-1998, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the same grounds. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and submitted representation dated 19-09-1998. On the said representation, respondent No.2 passed Orders on 28-10-1998, confirming the orders of respondent No.3 dated 15-09-1998. (iii) After the death of the husband of the petitioner, when the petitioner applied to Traffic Management for settlement, the authorities of Traffic Manager’s Office insisted the petitioner to bring Succession Certificate from the competent Court as there is a rival claim. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained Succession Certificate and submitted the same on 18-05-1992. Subsequently, the Traffic Manager has processed for settlement and FSF payment was arranged. Since the petitioner studied 7th Class only, she opted her son’s name for compassionate appointment as bread winner of their family. Though the petitioner submitted application on 29-02-1992 and also on 18-05-1992 along with Succession Certificate obtained from the competent Court, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rejected the claim of the petitioners without considering the claim of the petitioner in a proper manner. Under the said circumstances, having no other option, the petitioner constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a Counter Affidavit has been filed on 19-04-2005. As per the averments made in the Counter Affidavit, the petitioner’s son i.e., Bhaskara Rao filed W.P.No.11554 of 1999 before this Court seeking direction to declare the action of the respondents therein in rejecting his request for appointment on compassionate grounds as illegal and it is still pending. As and when one Writ Petition is pending seeking the same relief by the son of the petitioner, by filing the present Writ Petition for the same relief by the petitioner, there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner. 4. As and when one Writ Petition is pending seeking the same relief by the son of the petitioner, by filing the present Writ Petition for the same relief by the petitioner, there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner. 4. In the Counter Affidavit at para No.6, the respondents admitted that the husband of the petitioner i.e., T. Narasimha Rao, Hamali of Traffic Department, expired on 24-08-1990 while in service and the petitioner submitted the Succession Certificate on 22-05-1992 and made representation on 29-12-1992 in the first instance seeking employment for herself, but not on 20-02-1992 as stated by the petitioner. Subsequently, an application was received on 23-01-1993, but the application dated 18-05-1992 was not received. It is also admitted by the respondents that the respondents have advised the petitioner to submit the proof of Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificates vide Letter dated 10/11-02-1993, and accordingly, the petitioner submitted all relevant certificates vide Letter dated 20-04-1993. 5. It is also admitted by the respondents that they advised the petitioner to submit the Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificate of her son to consider her request vide their Office Letter dated 24-02-1992, and she submitted all relevant documents on 08-08-1994. Another representation received from the petitioner on 06-03-1997. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner has submitted required information on 02-04-1997, but the reminder of the petitioner dated 14-10-1997 was not received by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner has been informed that her request has been treated as belated claim vide their Office Letter dated 08-08-1998 and 15-09-1998. Subsequently, vide Proceedings in Manager(OP)s Letter No.M/ML/Corres/1998, dated 28.11.1998, the representation made to respondent No.1 was regretted. 6. It is also admitted by the respondents that after receiving Succession Certificate from the petitioner, Settlement and FSF payments were made but it is denied that representation dated 18-05-1992 was received from the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that as per the rules, an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds should be preferred within two years from the date of expiry/retirement on medical grounds of the employee. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner expired on 24-08-1990, and as such, application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be preferred on or before 23-08-1992. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner expired on 24-08-1990, and as such, application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be preferred on or before 23-08-1992. It is also mentioned in the Counter Affidavit that since there is a rival claim, as per Chairman’s Letter No.LS/44/90, dated 05-11-1990, both were addressed to submit the Succession Certificate and since the petitioner has submitted the Succession Certificate on 22-05-1992 and the subsequent applications seeking for compassionate appointment dated 29-12-1992 and 23-01-1993 of the petitioner were taken into consideration to process for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. It is also stated that the respondents have not received any representation seeking employment on compassionate grounds either on 29-02-1992 or 18-05-1992 from the petitioner. As the petitioner request was not made within the time prescribed as per the rules, their claim was rejected. 8. Heard Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 9. Both the counsel reiterated the facts narrated in the Affidavit and Counter Affidavit of the respective parties while advancing their arguments. 10. As seen from the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner died on 24-08-1990 while he was working as Hamali in Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Since there is a counter claim, as per Chairman’s Letter No.LS/44/90, dated 05-11-1990, both were addressed to submit the Succession Certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the Succession Certificate on 22-05-1992. After receiving the Succession Certificate from the petitioner, the respondents made Settlement and FSF payments to the petitioner. 11. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondents requesting to provide employment on compassionate grounds to her at the first instance and later option was given to provide employment to her son. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents vide Letter dated 10/11-02-1993, advised the petitioner to submit the proof of her Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificate. On 20-04-1993, the same were submitted by the petitioner. Vide Letter dated 24-02-1994, the respondents advised the petitioner to approach along with Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificate of Petitioner’s son, and accordingly, on 08-08-1994, the petitioner and her son approached respondent No.3 and submitted the necessary certificates. 12. On 20-04-1993, the same were submitted by the petitioner. Vide Letter dated 24-02-1994, the respondents advised the petitioner to approach along with Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificate of Petitioner’s son, and accordingly, on 08-08-1994, the petitioner and her son approached respondent No.3 and submitted the necessary certificates. 12. It appears from the record that thereupon i.e., from 08-08-1994 to 06-03-1997, till the date of submission of another representation by the petitioner, no steps have been taken by the respondents to process the claim of the petitioner. After a gap of three years, it appears, to cover up the delay made by the respondents in considering the claim of the petitioner, the respondents sought some information again from the petitioner and the petitioners left with no option furnished the same again on 02-04-1997. After that, on 08-08-1998, respondent No.3 vide Letter No.TC/APPL/APPTS/TBR/08-08-1998, informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s request for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as per the extent rules as the petitioner preferred the application for appointment on compassionate grounds after lapse of considerable period of 2 years. It appears that on 20-08-1998, the petitioner requested to re-consider the claim of the petitioner, but vide Letter No.TE/APPL/APPTS/TBR, dated 15-09-1998, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that the request for providing employment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered. On 19-09-1998, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1. It appears from the Counter Affidavit that the said representation was regretted by respondent No.2 vide his Letter dated 28-11-1998. 13. The contention of the respondents that the son of the petitioner filed W.P.No.15446 of 1999 before this Court seeking the same relief which was sought in the present Writ Petition and it is pending. In fact, W.P.No.15446 of 1999 was dismissed for non-prosecution by Order of this Court dated 02-06-2009. However, in view of the fact that trauma being faced due to the sudden demise of the bread winner of the family and non consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment for a long period by the respondents, and in view of the fact that the Writ Petition filed by the son was dismissed for non prosecution, in the opinion of this Court to the contention of the respondents about the writ filed earlier, there is no need to give much relevance to that aspect. 14. 14. It appears that there is some force in the contention of the petitioner that they have submitted the Succession Certificate as per the instructions of the respondents on 18-05-1992 for settlement and FSF payments and they made representation on 29-02-1992 and also on 18-05-1992 requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is an admitted fact that basing on the Succession Certificate submitted on 18-05-1992, the respondents made settlement and FSF payment to the petitioner. As and when the petitioner submitted Succession Certificate as per the instructions of the respondents on 22-05-1992, it is also to be a fact that the petitioner submitted the representation on 29-02-1992 and 18-05-1992 might be correct. This Court also noticed that in the Letter dated 15-09-1998 of respondent No.3, it was stated that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 23-01-1993 and whereas in the paragraph No.6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, it was admitted that the petitioner submitted the Succession Certificate on 22-05-1992 and made representation on 29-12-1992 in the first instance seeking employment for the petitioner, but not on 20-02-1992. On perusal of the contradictory stand of the respondents with regard to the date of first application submitted by the petitioner in the Letter dated 15-09-1998 of respondent No.3 and the admission in the Counter Affidavit at paragraph No.6 filed by the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents without considering the claim of the petitioner in a proper perspective rejected the claim of the petitioner. 15. Even assuming that as per the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has submitted application on 29-12-1992 in the first instance seeking employment on compassionate grounds, there will be only four months gap between the stipulated date of 23-08-1992 to 29-12-1992. If the applications of the petitioner are not in accordance with the procedure provided, the respondents ought to have rejected the representations of the petitioner at threshold without calling for the petitioner and her son to submit their Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth Certificates and other relevant information by their Letters dated 10/11-02-1993 and 24-02-1994. 16. It is also admitted in the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner submitted all relevant documents on 08-08-1994. Thereafter, the respondents slept over without considering the claim of the petitioner for three years. 16. It is also admitted in the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner submitted all relevant documents on 08-08-1994. Thereafter, the respondents slept over without considering the claim of the petitioner for three years. Only after receipt of another representation dated 06-03-1997 by the petitioner, it appears, to cover up the delay, the respondents sought some other information from the petitioner, but however, it was furnished by the petitioner on 02-04-1997. Thereafter, the impugned Proceedings dated 08-08-1998 and 15-09-1998 were issued by respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is a belated one. 17. The object of providing compassionate appointment is not only a social security measure to help the families of the deceased government employees, but also to support the family of the deceased employee, who died in harness. So, the State being the Welfare State, should extend its hands to lift a family from penury, rather than pushing them into penury. The core purpose of compassionate appointment is to save a family from financial vacuum, created after the death of deceased employee. This financial vacuum could be filled up by providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is to look after the survivors of the deceased father. This Court is of the considered view that in the instant case, the compassionate employment policy requires a generous application, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 18. The widow of the deceased employee made a representation to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust for providing compassionate employment to her son since the bread earner of the family unfortunately met with pre-matured death, resulting into untold financial tragedy for the entire family. The representation went unheeded. Therefore, a Writ Petition was moved before the High Court. 19. The employer being Visakhapatnam Port Trust, admittedly an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has thus an obligation to act in terms of the avowed objective of social and economic justice as enshrined in the Constitution but has the authority in the facts of the matters under consideration acted like a model and an ideal employer. It is in this factual backdrop, the issue needs an answer as to whether we have been able to obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not. It is in this factual backdrop, the issue needs an answer as to whether we have been able to obtain the benefit of constitutional philosophy of social and economic justice or not. Can the law courts be a mute spectator in the matter of denial of such a relief to the horrendous sufferings of an employees family by reason of the death of the bread-earner. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by providing compassionate appointment by which the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. 20. The view of this Court has supported from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2000) 6 SCC 493 : Manu/SC/0400/2000, in which their Lordships held as hereunder: “In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a human outlook.” 21. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer v V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment, the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 22. As and when the respondents slept over on the representations of the petitioners for a period of more than three years without processing/considering the same, the contention of the respondents at present that there are latches in filing the Writ Petition has no substance. 23. In W.P.M.P.No.24852 of 2004, this Court by its Order dated 23-05-2005, directed the respondents to include the name of the son of the petitioner i.e., T. Bhaskara Rao in seniority list by issuing Master List Identity Card, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Against the said interim direction, the respondents filed vacate Petition seeking to vacate interim order in WVMP No.1175 of 2005. But, this Court by its Order dated 28-03-2008, dismissed the said petition and the interim order passed on 25-03-2005 in W.P.M.P.No.24852 of 2004 was made absolute. In view of the fact that the interim order passed on 23-05-2005 was made absolute, this Court believes that the name of the son of the petitioner might be included in the seniority list by the respondents in compliance of the interim order. 24. In view of the above, this Court holds that the respondents failed to consider the request of the petitioner to provide an appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds to her son in proper perspective and turned down her request without considering the object for providing compassionate appointment. As such, this Court holds that the petitioner made out a case for interference of this Court to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. 25. As such, this Court holds that the petitioner made out a case for interference of this Court to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. 25. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Letter No. TE/APPL/APPTS/TBR, dated 08-08-1998 and 15-09-1998 by respondent No.3 and Lr.No.M/ML/CDRRES/98, dated 28-11-1998 of respondent No.2 are hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner in any suitable post in Visakhapatnam Port Trust within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 26. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed…